»Which door wanted the Architect Neo to take?«

You have to register as a user to be able to vote here.

I think it's obvious he wanted him to go through the left door.

First of all, he knew before Neo decided where to go what he would choose:
"I can already sense..." (you know the quote)

Secondly, if he would desperately want him to go right, why did he tell him about Trinity? Maybe if he didn't remind him of her and show him that she is in danger, he would have just gone right.

Well, that's just my idea...

Kitty wrote:

First of all, he knew before Neo decided where to go what he would choose: "I can already sense..." (you know the quote)

So? He just tells him that he see any of his reactions.

Kitty wrote:

Secondly, if he would desperately want him to go right, why did he tell him about Trinity?

Because he likes to see others suffer. Look at his face, it's just like a human's

Think of Morpheus speech
Morpheus: "I do not see coincidence, I see providence"
and you see the screw failing and the bridge collapsing. This may be the very reason why afterwards Trinity went into the Matrix. Maybe the system WANTS Neo to choose the left door and thus sends Trinity in?

Quote:

he knew before Neo decided where to go what he would choose

Like the Ocale tells Neo... he already made the choice, he justs needs to understand it. He made the choice long before he stepped into the Archiects... tv room. It was in that scene that Neo finally understands the choice.

i dont think the archatected was progamed to care, he was just programed to give information using big words

...

Nicely put

As he constructs and calculates, the Architect doesn't have something particular in mind to be identified as his will. As a result of his construction he sugests the other door as the better choice, but he left the decision up to Neo. Therefore, none of the options in the poll fit IMHO.

I think it doesn't matter whether you say he "wanted" Neo to take the right door or whether you say he thought Neo "should" take the right door.

The point is that he didn't think Neo should take the left door and since, as he said, everyone in Matrix will be killed if he doesn't choose the right door and since those same humans are what powers the machines it seems unlikely that he would "want" neo to make that choice.

yeah but what happend to the crash anyway? did archie lie?

There aren't enough possible answers. You have forgotten the true answer which is that there is no answer. There is no explanation to the matrix, or for which door Neo chose, because it all doesn't make sense.

Smith would not longer be effective if Neo had taken the door on the right. Smith is what is going to cause the system crash. However, if Neo had taken the door on the right no peace would have been reached and Zion would have been destroyed.

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Of course it does!

No, it definitely does not. I have been matrixing since the day after I saw reloaded. I have read every possible Revolutions theory and explanation. None work. The plot has more holes than a sieve. The first movie alone made sense, and had a decent plot. Reloaded changed things and made you wonder where they were going. Revolutions proved they were going nowhere. The trilogy's plot ended with vague references to all religions and a renewal of the world as we know it today, as if it is naturally good.

I will continue to leave the Matrix at the top of my favorite movies list. However, Reloaded and Revolutions do not deserve any recognition. I would have to put Revolutions in my "all time disappointments" lists.

ya this is gay..if i was neo i would shot myself for being gay

stinkz wrote:

No, it definitely does not. ... I have read every possible Revolutions theory and explanation. None work.

This may be true for your level of understanding. I see it fit as I posted on several places (a while ago). It is hard to rate which view is superior, yours or mine. For sure I reap more of the plot ...

stinkz wrote:

The plot has more holes than a sieve. The first movie alone made sense, and had a decent plot. Reloaded changed things and made you wonder where they were going. Revolutions proved they were going nowhere.

I saw it the other way around. Anyway, the Matrix world doesn't even try to resolve all loose ends. In my eyes this is made by purpose and it seems to be narrow minded to ask for this. Matrix has many complex intersecting layers to be considered from various angles, as real life does as well.

stinkz wrote:

The trilogy's plot ended with vague references to all religions and a renewal of the world as we know it today, as if it is naturally good.

I disagree. The authors didn't formally confess Jesus but they made very deep references. Also to Budism and some others. But the result is not a vague melange, it is a strong extract. My personal conviction deiffers significantly from the authors view point, but you cannot call theirs unclear. It is a complex foundation of Love, Hope and Faith - just wraped in a sophisticated story.

just_a_program wrote:

This may be true for your level of understanding.

What is that supposed to mean? There has not been one theory that has been thought of that works with the trilogy. If there was, there would be some coherance of thought. However, as you can see from this forum, there is none. Everyone reads into it what they want because it was vague.

just_a_program wrote:

Matrix has many complex intersecting layers to be considered from various angles, as real life does as well.

What an excuse for vagueness! Movies aren't real life. That is why people go to see them. Just because they were vague and made people look into them, doesn't mean the movies were good. I judge a movie on its quality, not on vagueness. Coherance and an intelligible plot are part of quality.

Just because you didn't understand the pliot doesn't mean it wasn't coherent. It could just mean that you are thick. I'm sorry if you don't inderstand the plot of the matrix sequels, but unless you tell us what you are confused by we are unlikely to be able to help you.

As for the religious references, they make sense too and are linked with theological debates on a number of levels. The matrix sequels are more about theology than philosophy and there are large ties with Pauline Theology. The two symbols I saw were the crucifix and the lotus. The crucifix is obviously christian (which is has quite a wide range of religious concepts to itself) while the lotus is generally accepted by most religions as symbolising purification. (Pure flower grows from dirt) The passion od Christ is theologically considered to be the source of man's redmeption (or purification) What is the problem here?

The problem is still one of vagueness. The plot did not fully make sense. Sure, you can try to explain one thing (like why the Agents are after Neo and want to kill him), but once you think you've got it, you find something which doesn't fit. Then you change your mind and try to make it make sense again. The problem is, all the parts of the matrix do not fit. There is no coherant plot; no coherant explanation for Neo's powers in the real world; no coherant explanation why the matrix kept on going; no coherant explanation of why Smith was somehow Neo's negative and could copy himself onto people; no explanation for why Smith died by copying onto the Oracle; no explanation for the trainstation; no explanation for programs showing "love" and other human emotions; no explanations at all!

Revolutions was supposed to explain Neo's powers in the real world. It was supposed to make all the loose ends in Reloaded fit. It didn't. Search the site and look up "The System Theory." That conclusion to the story would have been much more coherant, and would have justified the addition of the two sequals.

Quote:

Neo- If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again. Architect- We won't.

by saying this, the architect either thinks that he will not meet the 'one' again because the humans will all have been destroyed along with the matrix, or that by Neo choosing the left door, he will not have to see the 'one' again because the problem will be fixed for good, eliminating the anomaly.

it is only 'vague' because your thinking is muddy.

Quote:

no coherant explanation for Neo's powers in the real world

Neo got his powers from the Source. now, what is the source? it is not the machine city/hardrive, nor is it the Deus Ex Machina. the source is the energy/essence/spirit of humanity which runs from the powerplant to the machine city and flows through the machines. Neo tapped into this power.

Quote:

Reeves sees Neo as "a lightning rod, a searcher and a witness. In acting out his quest, Neo makes himself available as a conduit for a very powerful energy force, which translates into these extraordinary powers."

do you understand that, Stinkz?

the matrix kept on going so that all could keep on going, the humans, machines and programs
shit i should have made a new topic about this, but... the machines are evolving into a more 'human' like nature. we see this evidenced by Rama Kandra and Sati in Revolutions.

Rama Kandra works at the power plant, which is where all the energy is coming from (the humans) maybe, like radiation, it permeates him and he is affected by it so much that he desides he must create a child out of love

Quote:

no coherant explanation of why Smith was somehow Neo's negative and could copy himself onto people

Smith and Neo represent different aspects of the mind. Smith was Ego. Neo was the antithesis of this, i don't know a term but Neo saw that he wasn't the center of everything and that his actions should not be for his own interest, but for the whole.

do you understand this?
Smiths' ego was taking over. actions leading to his own self interest.

i read elsewhere on this forum that the Oracle, Sati and Seraph represent faith, love and watchfulness, i think that is what they were, i'm not sure, try finding it.

Quote:

no explanation for why Smith died by copying onto the Oracle

Smith did not die from copying onto the oracle, he died after copying onto Neo, and Neo was connected to the Source.

Now what does it mean to go back to the Source for deletion?

Humans created, gave birth to AI. it is their thoughts/energy/essence/spirit that sustains the machines. to go back to the Source is to go back to where you came from.

Do you understand that?

Quote:

no explanation for the trainstation

there is an explanation for the trainstaion, maybe if you were not 'thick' you would have heard it. it is for travel between the machine city and the matrix. it is a way for exile programs to enter the matrix.

Quote:

no explanation for programs showing "love" and other human emotions

i explained this above. the machines and humans essence is becoming the same

Quote:

no explanations at all!

quite wrong there Stinkz

Quote:

Revolutions was supposed to explain Neo's powers in the real world. It was supposed to make all the loose ends in Reloaded fit. It didn't

It did.

Do you really think that I have not heard EVERY SINGLE ONE of those ideas before? They are all very nice, and I'm glad you think you've got it all figured out. But, you're not comprehending. Every one of those things you said could be completely wrong.

You can make up metaphorical explanations until you are blue in the face; that doesn't make them true. The truth is, Revolutions, the conclusion to the trilogy, brought no conclusion at all. It only raised more questions. Raising questions is not the job of the third movie in a trilogy.
The movie critics were right. The matrix is a movie about the end of the world, which leaves the audience totally indifferent to the outcome.


Let us recap some of the things which didn't make sense.

We learned in the first one that you had to be jacked in to the matrix. In the second one, Neo seems to exercise powers outside the matrix. Now, we expect a good explanation for what happened. In the third one, they explain that Neo had powers OUTSIDE the matrix because he tapped into "the source." That was a cop-out. It was a vague non-explanation. It makes no logical sense. The whole rest of the plot with the realism of going in and out of a computer simulation was stripped away.

Actually, I don't want to go on tonight.... I have to get some sleep. I'll post some more examples of the ridiculous way Revolutions was a cop-out tommorrow. sry

you still cannot see

cannot see? or see too much?

When you try to look at the matrix from every possible angle, many parts do not make sense. It is that simple. There is no coherant theory which encompasses all of the matrix. Usually, in good movies, if there is deeper meaning within it, the meaning does not take the place of the plot. A straightforward plot is still a neccessary element in any good movie (a comedy may be an exception). No matter how you look at it, the last two movies did not have that. Moreover, even the supposed "deeper" meanings are so ambiguous that no person can get anything from the movies which they did not read into it.

Take Trinity's name for example. In the first movie, it made sense. The name was a monicker she used while online. The deeper meaning behind it was expressed when Neo said "I thought you were a guy." and she said "most guys do." Here she was representing the Christian concept of God and the fact that He is presented in the masculine gender in Scripture. Feminists have problems with this. Of course, anyone who knew anything about language would understand that the masculine gender is applied to many things which have no gender of themselves, and when referring to a plural number of people. But that is beside the point. The concept made sense, and the deeper meaning was there.

This was all lost in Revolutions, and to a lesser extend, Reloaded. The plot was substituted for vague "deeper" meanings (mainly Buddhist and humanist teachings). It even got to the point where it became meaningless who you were cheering for, because either way, the same thing would happen. All excitement (and not to mention, special effects) was lost.

Take Smith for example. In the first movie, he is an agent. An agent is a special form of software which can move in and out of any hardware which is hardwired to the system. That makes sense. In the second movie, we find that he has become (for whatever reason) a virus, which can replicate. This still makes some sense. In Revolutions, we find that Smith is Neo's negative. THAT MAKES NO SENSE. Here, the audience is forced to make assumptions as to what that means. Does everything good have to have its equal and opposite evil? Does Smith have to appear just because Neo appears? Will Neo die if Smith dies? Did the Architect create the virus, only to make Neo die to cure it? All of these are completely unanswerable questions. In order to go on thinking about the matrix, you have to at least assume stupid things like "every good has its equal but opposite evil, and Smith's becoming powerful was inevitable because of this rule."

All forms of logical progression were lost in the third movie. Logic no longer applies. The movie relies entirely on metaphor. Without logic, realism dies. Without at least some form of realism, the movie dies. And that's what it did.

then suspend logic

I'm sorry, I cannot become an idiot for the sake of a movie.

why don't you come up with your own understanding and post it instead of just saying there is no explanation?

are you mad that it does not conform to or confirm your own beliefs?

Quote:

All forms of logical progression were lost in the third movie. Logic no longer applies. The movie relies entirely on metaphor. Without logic, realism dies. Without at least some form of realism, the movie dies. And that's what it did.

a lot of movies suspend realism, do you not like those movies as well?

post some examples of 'realistic' movies. is it just a couple of people having a 'normal' conversation? is it a movie based entirely on facts from the 'real' world?

are you entirely incapable of irrational thought?

then don't be an idiot, suspending logic and reason has nothing to do with intelligence

are you capable of abstract thinking?